About your Search

20130201
20130209
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
pain. to hear more of phyllis's story, visit lyrica.com. >>> a new secretary of defense or a new -- it's friday, february 1st, and this is "now." >>> joining me today political -- well, the first word i'm tripping up on the first word. politico senior white house reporter glenn thrush. national news editor for the morning times sam sifton, kiran simone and the always buzzy ben smith. for eight hours yesterday senate republicans directed their sharpest lines of inquiry towards defense secretary nominee chuck hagel. it's too bad most of it had nothing to do with the against defense department or what chuck hagel's record really says about what he might do with the defense department or really what chuck hagel's record actually is. freshman senator and deputy gum shoe ted cruz looked for needles in a haystack, parsing fragments of hagel's quotes circa 2006. >> in a speech on the floor of the senate you referred to israel's military campaign against the terrorist group hezbollah as a "sickening slaughter." now, i would suggest the characterizations. do you think it's right that israel was
and expanded under president obama. brennan's defense of the secrecy surrounding the administration's most questionable program, targeted assassinations using drone aircraft, was as opaque as the program itself. >> what we need to do is optimize transparency on these issues, but at the same time optimize secrecy and the protection of our national security. i don't think that it's one or the other. it's trying to optimize both of them. >> some senators, including ron widen and angus king, pushed brennan to explain the legal at and justification for assassinating american citizens abroad. >> every american has the right to know when their government believes it's allowed to kill them. >> i understand you can't have co-commanders in chief, but having the executive being the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, and the executioner all in one is very contrary to traditions and the laws of this country. >> brennan argued essentially that the ends justify the means. >> the decision that is are made are to take actions so that we prevent a future action so we protect american lives. that is an inheren
to little to reveal anything substantive about chuck hagel, defense secretary, the pink panther style sleuthing did reveal much about their feelings regarding barack obama, president. of the many, many actually relevant items left largely off the table? not one question about drones, despite the fact the u.s. has carried out 362 drone strikes since 2004. troop suicides, of which there were as many as 349 last year alone were mentioned twice. rapes inside the military estimated at 19,000 per year got five passing mentions. while israel was brought up 166 times yesterday, afghanistan, the longest running war in american history, and one that has cost almost 2,000 american lives was brought up 20 times. glen thrush, i ask you, the hearings yesterday, were they ever even meant to be hearings, or was it a trial for the obama administration? >> i was just struck by the great positive energy that chuck hagel was giving off at these hearings. didn't he look like he had just been abduct and pushed out of a moving vehicle? >> he was facing eight hours of questioning that as we showed at the beg
$550 billion cut from defense and nondefense over ten years, but the programs that democrats or the left care most about which is to say social security, food stamps, those are exempted from this. it does hurt. i mean, we're talking about 7.6 to 9.6 cuts across the board for fema, for the tsa, for hud. but at the end of the day, the defense cuts, i mean, we're talking about a huge chunk of change that comes from the against industry and the loss potentially of a million jobs at a time when republicans are saying we need to focus on job growth. >> i think it is a bit of an unknown in terms of how exactly it plays. i think republicans are going into this as i said before especially after the fight that we saw a couple weeks ago, i think that it is very hard for republicans in their districts to sell defense cuts as something that was necessary. and, yes, this absolutely had to happen. however, my asterisk on this is that i think anytime you have something like this that is sort of unwielddy and unknown, there is no way that it won't be somewhat problematic for the president. >>
in the country that has a total liability exemption because they are the only -- every other defense contractor has a liability that they attach to them legally. they are exempt from lawsuits and everything because the lobby is so powerful at getting them just cleared off of the books in term of ow laws. it's absurd sfwloosh can i say one thing independent and parallel to this conversation about gun safety. the whole aim is to make our country safer, right? yet, the thing that we aren't talking about, this is such an important and lost point. reported by buzz feed. port was more highly correlated with gun deaths than almost any other state characteristic. more intensive interventions for mental illness might not have much affect on the overall gun violence rate given that severely mentally ill people are involved in only about 4% of violent crime. that is not something being described. there's a lot of analysis about how effective a gun ban would be of any kind. how effecttive mental health -- better mental health programs would be. at the end of the day -- the linkage tweej poverty and fwun vi
we take the drone program and put it under the defense department, which would give a little bit more accountability and transparency to this, or keep it as part of the cia and the defense department, and i think that's a big policy question that's going forward. i in addition i think the president does have to be more forthcoming about how he conducts his program going forward because he understands, i believe, that he can't set a precedent for future presidents, that there has to be some legal bondries for the stuff that he is doing. if not, there's going to be a lot of outcry and call for disclosure. >> radiki, it's funny we have to keep playing this "daily show" clip. first and foremost, the decision to talk about drones and actually your accountability on "the daily show" relating to national security is one thing, but if you actually think about who the president is and who we presume him to be, i mean, he has come a long way from where he was even as a senator in the u.s. congress, his position on civil liberties issues and national security issues there. buzz feed points out o
. in 2010 pistols past rifle. we're thawing did a gun culture that's primarily focused on self-defense. what's weird about that is it's a time that crime is declining pretty rapidly. >> when we talk about -- there is some -- i don't want to put sort of cultural differences at the root of this, but that is some part of that, and i thought actually chris wallace did an effective job of drawing that out from wayne law pierre yesterday when they were talking about the ad that the nra was running about the obama daughters. let's play a little bit of that sound. >> the president's kids are safe, and we're all thankful for it. the point of that ad -- >> they also face a threat that most people do not face. >> tell that to the people in newtown. sflu really think that the president's children are the same kind of target as every schoolchild in america? i think that's ridiculous, and you know it, sir. one of the points of that ad that i want to ask you about is you made it a class argument. the rich, the elite. >> sure. >> they have bodyguards. they have security. >> sure. and mayor bloomberg has it.
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)